Martin Oliver, Graham P. Shaw


Although the potential of asynchronous discussion to support learning is widely recognized, student engagement remains problematic. Often, for example, students simply refuse to participate. Consequently the rich promise of asynchronous learning networks for supporting students’ learning can prove hard to achieve.

After reviewing strategies for encouraging student participation in discussions in Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN), we present a study that investigates how these strategies influenced students’ perceptions and use of the discussion area. We identify and explore factors that encouraged and inhibited student participation in asynchronous discussion, and evaluate student postings to an asynchronous discussion group by content analysis.The results question received wisdom about some of the pedagogic techniques advocated in the literature.

Instead, results support the view that the major factors for stimulating student participation in asynchronous discussion are tutor enthusiasm and expertise. It appears that the tutor may be the root cause of engagement in discussions, an important conclusion, given that to date, the tutor’s role has remained relatively unexamined. We also note that participation in asynchronous discussion is inhibited when students allocate a low priority to participation, as may occur when participation is not assessed.

Content analysis of an asynchronous discussion in this study reveals that contributions were not strongly interactive and that students were simply ‘playing the game’ of assessment, making postings that earned marks but rarely contributing otherwise. Thus the use of assessment to encourage students’ contributions appears to be only a superficial success; it seems likely that giving credit for postings changes behavior without necessarily improving learning. This finding has significant implications for curriculum design.


Asynchronous Discussion,Tutor,Assessment,Learning Effectiveness,Student Satisfaction

Full Text:



Hiltz, S.R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Turoff, M. and Benbunan-Fich, R. Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi-Measure, Multi-Method Approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2000.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R. and Archer, W. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 5, No 2, 2001.

Mason, R. Moderating educational computer conferences. DEOSNEWS Vol. 1, No. 19, 1991.

Paulsen, M.P. Moderating educational computer conferences. In Berge, Z.L. and Collins, M.P. (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in distance education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 1995.

Warren, K. and Rada, R. Sustaining computer-mediated communication in university courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol. 14, pp 71-80, 1998.

Salmon, G. E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. 2000.

Pilkington, R., Bennett, C. and Vaughan, S. An Evaluation of Computer Mediated Communication to Support Group Discussion in Continuing Education. Educational Technology and Society. Vol. 3, No 3, pp 349-360, 2000.

Hiltz, S.R. Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: some preliminary results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 1, No. 2, 1998.

Owen, M. Structure and Discourse in a telematic learning environment. Educational Technology and Society. Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 349-360, 2000.

Shaw, G. and Pieter, W. The Use of Asynchronous Learning Networks in Nutrition Education: Student Attitude, Experiences and Performance. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 4, No 1, pp 40-51, 2000.

McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., and Cox, R. Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Vol. 14, pp 110-119, 1998.

Jones, C. Evaluating a collaborative online learning environment. Active Learning. Vol. 9, pp 31–35, 1998.

Beaudin, B.P. Keeping online asynchronous discussion on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 3, No.2, 1999.

Wolf, R.M. Questionnaire. In: Keeves, J.P. (Ed), Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1988.

Mason, R. Evaluating Technology-Based Learning. In: Collins, B. and Davies, G. (Eds.), Innovative Adult Learning with Innovative Technologies. Holland: Elsevier. 1995.

Morris, D., Mitchell, N. and Bell, M. Student use of computer-mediated communication in an Open University Level 1 Course: Academic or Social? Journal of Interactive media in Education. Vol. 99, No. 2, 1999.

Shifter, C.C. Faculty participation in asynchronous learning networks: A case study of motivating and inhibiting factors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 4, No. 1, 2000.

Kerr, E. Electronic leadership: A guide to moderating online conferences. IEEE transactions on professional communications. Vol. 29, No. 1, pp 12 – 18, 1986.

Mastrian, K.G. and McGonigle, D. Older student perceptions of technology based learning assignments. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics Vol. 1, No 2, 1997.

Jones, C. Do technologies have politics? The new paradigm and pedagogy in networked learning. TPP – What next? Calgary. 2001.

Rowland, S. The Enquiring University Teacher. Buckinghamshire: SRHE/Open University Press. 2000.


Copyright (c) 2019 Martin Oliver, Graham P. Shaw